About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
are they going to do about california. for me, that is the big question. california, the prop 8 decision where voters of california voted to allow same-sex marriages and then a few months later voted to write into the state constitution that such unions were illegal. if the supreme court decides not to take up that case, then people in california -- gay people in california would be able to get married almost immediately. but if they do take up the case, then the question of a right to marry goes to the supreme court. very fascinating time. >> are you surprised that they decided not to -- >> yes, i am surprised. and i will be even more surprised if they don't do something on monday. i think a lot of people are waiting. >> i'm hoping that the supreme court will weigh in on this. i want to see the courts and perhaps the legislature deal with this and not leave to the voters because the voters often get these things wrong. i don't think civil rights question shoes go to voters partly because you get into the thing of the whim of the voters and where the political whims are. we don't vote in this
, congressman from california. they both gave thifr interpretations. peter king said petraeus said he didn't know who are on when the cia intelligence talking points were edited, and shift said that petraeus said that the reason they were edited was to protect classified information. now, i talked to a former cia counterintelligence official today who said that both of those aassessessments can't rea live in the same word, so maybe there's some misinterpretation of what petraeus said. you can't believe on the one hand petraeus didn't know why the talking points were edited and on the other he had a perfectly good explanation for why the points were edited. make we'll get more on that. i think that we have a deeper understanding here after today about why david petraeus so badly want upped to come out and set the record straight. he didn't want on record that cia intelligence was bad and that was the reason. so that "wall street journal" report we saw yesterday talking about petraeus in his final days at the cia really wanting to come out and talk publicly. we have a greater sense of why th
't duplicate that with the best hollywood budget. i grew up in l.a. and moved to northern california and got a job logging and started to look around. eventually tv people came up there, and i was working behind the camera. the site was hard to find. dude, you should be in front of the camera. >> how many encounterers have had? >> encounters? dozens. like when they're around, you can hear them and smell them. i haven't smelled that much, but i've seen them a handful of times. i had one daylight sighting, i saw half lean out behind the tree for a half second and it was gone. >> if you're like me, i put myself in the skeptic category, although i want to believe and i would love to see evidence myself of bigfoot. i'm into it. but on the one hand you think, god, there's so many sightings and so many different continents and countries and states. how can all of those people be wrong or lying? on the other hand, where's the body? i want to see the body. what is your most conclusive evidence to me for why sasquatch exists? >> there's a big dna study going on right now. they mapped the genome, and t
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)